The most well known difference, of course, is that the EO's have seven (or eight or nine) councils and the OO's have three. We OO's like to use the language "one nature" when speaking of Christ, meaning that He is one Person who is fully human and fully divine, while the EO's use "two natures." This all has been discussed extensively here already and it can get contentious. The more contentious discussions get put into a private forum. Many modern theologians who have researched the issue have come to the conclusion that we really believe the same thing. What keeps us apart really are more historical and cultural differences.

You may want to spend some time just reading threads in this section to get a feel for us. :-)

Yeah, that is what worries me. I hope the differences are not of great importance and that there will be one Orthodox Church in the near future. Thank you both for the links, looks like I have some reading to do!

Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

It seems that there is a slight difference in the understanding of the role of civil authorities in the Church. The EO seem to uphold a higher view of the power and role of Orthodox Christian civil authorities (mostly as historically manifest in the Byzantine Emperor), whereas the OO tend to view their role as lower and more subject to the clergy. What makes me think this is that in the events of the Chalcedonic schism, the EO thought it was entirely proper and valid for the Emperor to unilaterally depose various clergy of the Church (even Patriarchs) from their positions because of non-adherence to the Imperial religion, whereas this was rejected by the OO, and the only time they have ever accepted such a role is when it was in cooperation with high ranking church authorities. Further, the Photian schism among the EO and RC is further proof of this, because the EO judged it legitimate for the Emperor to depose Patriarch Ignatios from his Patriarchal seat in Constantinople and elevate Photios in his place, whereas the Bishop of Rome (at first) rejected the legitimacy of this move.

I'm wondering what others here think of this?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Also, as in the Tome of Leo, the EO/RC appear to be comfortable with speaking of a certain dual agency within Christ, whereas the OO have consistently rejected any such idea.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

It seems that there is a slight difference in the understanding of the role of civil authorities in the Church. The EO seem to uphold a higher view of the power and role of Orthodox Christian civil authorities (mostly as historically manifest in the Byzantine Emperor), whereas the OO tend to view their role as lower and more subject to the clergy. What makes me think this is that in the events of the Chalcedonic schism, the EO thought it was entirely proper and valid for the Emperor to unilaterally depose various clergy of the Church (even Patriarchs) from their positions because of non-adherence to the Imperial religion, whereas this was rejected by the OO, and the only time they have ever accepted such a role is when it was in cooperation with high ranking church authorities. Further, the Photian schism among the EO and RC is further proof of this, because the EO judged it legitimate for the Emperor to depose Patriarch Ignatios from his Patriarchal seat in Constantinople and elevate Photios in his place, whereas the Bishop of Rome (at first) rejected the legitimacy of this move.

I'm wondering what others here think of this?

While that may be true, I get the feeling it would be more of an historical way-in-the-past thing. I'm not sure how that would affect how things are done now.

That may be the case that it's not relevant now. But it might be sometime in the future. For example, there are some who are calling for the restoration of the Georgian monarchy. There are many who think this is a likely future event. Would the king/queen of Georgia thus begin to play a role similar to the Byzantine Emperor or the later Russian Emperor, then being the one present EO monarch?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Firstly I have a request to Salpy to please allow some debate on the issue and not shut out opposition in some distant corners/communities to which no one has access rights or visits.

Deusveritasest has criticized (subtly or not) the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so we (EO) should be granted the right of defense.

It seems everybody here tries to convince the other that there is no difference at all between the EO faith and the OO faith, but it is quite possible that such difference indeed exists.

I would like to completely disagree with Deusveritasest’s remarks and remind him of St. John of Damascus who was in constant opposition to the iconoclastic emperor and suffered many evils of his hand. But after the storm calmed down, he was pronounced champion of orthodoxy.

And next I am giving citations from the Commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of John which will prove as I believe that the doctrine of Chalcedon is directly derived from St. Cyril’s teachings and that St. Leo did not contribute anything to the language of Chalcedon, but its language was that of St. Cyril.

So here we begin:

“For since the Word of God came down from heaven, He says that the son of man came down, refusing after the Incarnation to be divided into two persons, and not suffering certain to say that the Temple taken by reason of need of the Virgin is one Son, the Word again which appeared from God the Father another: save only as regards the distinction which belongs to each by nature. For as He is the Word of God, so Man too of a woman, but One Christ of both, Undivided in regard of Sonship and God-befitting Glory. For how does He clothe as its own the Temple of the Virgin, with what befitteth the bare Word Alone: and again appropriateth to Himself what befitteth the Flesh only? For now He saith that the Son of man hath come down from heaven: but at the time of His Passion, He feareth, and is sore afraid, and very heavy, and is recorded as Himself suffering the Sufferings which befitted His Human Nature only.” (Book 3, commentary on verses 3:12-13)

“For we will not divide that Great and Untaint Nature into different Words, so that it should be imperfect perchance in one, and again Perfect in the other. Since the definition of human nature too is one in respect of all men, and equal in all of us, what man will be less, qua man? but neither will he be considered more so than another. And I suppose that one angel will differ in nothing from another angel in respect of their being what they are, angels to wit, from sameness of nature, being all linked with one another unto one nature.” (Book 2, 1:32-33)“The evil growing and multiplying in us, and our understanding ever descending to the worse, sin reigned, and thus at length the nature of man was shewn bared of the Holy Ghost Which indwelt him. For the Holy Spirit of wisdom will flee deceit, as it is written, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. Since then the first Adam preserved not the grace given him of God, God the Father was minded to send us from Heaven the second Adam. For He sendeth in our likeness His own Son Who is by Nature without variableness or change, and wholly unknowing of sin, that as by the disobedience of the first, we became subject to Divine wrath, so through the obedience of the Second, we might both escape the curse, and its evils might come to nought. But when the Word of God became Man, He received the Spirit from the Father as one of us, (not receiving ought for Himself individually, for He was the Giver of the Spirit); but that He Who knew no sin, might, by receiving It as Man, preserve It to our nature, and might again inroot in us the grace which had left us. For this reason, I deem, it was that the holy Baptist profitably added, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven, and It abode upon Him. For It had fled from us by reason of sin, but He Who knew no sin, became as one of us, that the Spirit might be accustomed to abide in us, having no occasion of departure or withdrawal in Him.” (Book 2, 1:32-33)

“Herein specially do we see the boundless goodness of the Divine Nature, in that It refuseth not to make that which is spurned, Its choice for our sakes. But that the suffering on the Cross was unwilled by our Saviour Christ, yet willed for our sakes and the Good Pleasure of God the Father, you will hence understand. For when He was about to ascend thereunto, He made His addresses to God, saying, that is, in the form of prayer, Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as THOU. For that in that He is God the Word, Immortal and Incorruptible, and Life Itself by Nature, He could not shudder at death, I think is most clear to all: yet made in Flesh He suffers the Flesh to undergo things proper to it, and permits it to shudder at death when now at its doors, that He may be shewn to be in truth Man; therefore He says, If it be possible, let this Cup pass from Me. If it may be (He says) Father, that I, without suffering death, may gain life for them that have fallen thereinto if death may die without My dying, in the Flesh that is, let this cup (He says) pass from Me; but since it will not take place (He says) otherwise, not as I will, but as THOU. Thou seest how powerless human nature is found, even in Christ Himself, as far as it is concerned: but it is brought |385 back through the Word united with it unto God-befitting undauntedness and is re-trained to noble purpose, so as not to commit itself to what seems good to its own will, but rather to follow the Divine Aim, and readily to run to whatever the Law of its Creator calls us. That we say these things truly, you may learn from that too which is subjoined, For the spirit indeed (He saith) is willing, but the flesh is weak. For Christ was not ignorant that it is very far beneath God-befitting Dignity, to seem to be overcome by death, and to feel the dread of it: therefore He subjoined to what He had said the strongest defence, saying that the flesh was weak, by reason of what befits it and belongs to it by nature; but that the spirit was willing, knowing that it suffered nought that could harm. Seest thou how death was unwilled by Christ, by reason of the Flesh, and the inglory of suffering: yet willed, until He should have brought unto its destined consummation for the whole world the Good Pleasure of the Father, that is, the salvation and life of all?” (Book 4, 6:38-39)

Firstly I have a request to Salpy to please allow some debate on the issue and not shut out opposition in some distant corners/communities to which no one has access rights or visits.

Deusveritasest has criticized (subtly or not) the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so we (EO) should be granted the right of defense.

Cyril,

First off, you're really not supposed to criticize moderators or their actions in public. If you have a problem with something that either I or another moderator does, please click on the "report to moderator" button that you'll find on the post you find offensive, and explain what your complaint is. The other moderators--all of whom are EO--will take your complaint into consideration and correct the situation if it needs correction.

Secondly, what I did with your other post (I think it was in another thread) was done pursuant to forum rules. I didn't make up the particular rule which obligated me to make the move. Rather it was promulgated by others, including Father Anastasios, who is EO.

The rule is that contentious or polemical issues connected to Chalcedon are supposed to be discussed in a private forum created for that purpose. Your other post, which I moved there, seemed to have a polemical tone to it, as does this present post. I am allowing this present post to remain in this thread solely so that you get this message and you can understand the situation. If you want to discuss this further, you may pm Fr. Chris and ask for admission to the private forum:

Lastly, I was not "shutting out opposition" by moving your post. I have had no problem in the past addressing the issue you bring up (it's already been discussed to death here) and have nothing to hide. In fact, if you had taken a less polemical tone with this post, I probably would have had no problem with it being further discussed here. As it is, however, given the tone, I am going to ask that you or anyone else who wants to discuss this, please do it in the private forum.

In the meantime, you can click on the St. Cyril tag below, and read whatever has been already written about this. Some of the threads would be in the private section, which is why you may want to ask Fr. Chris to admit you there.

I don’t want to engage in any long disputes. However, you should know that as long as faith issues are under discussion polemics will be there. If you want that your section of the forum becomes non-polemical, you should forbid anyone from discussing faith here…

In hope that you won’t ban me for putting forth a quote of St. Cyril, the pillar of orthodoxy, please read this:“For wholly destitute of all share and taste of that life which is in sanctification and bliss, do they abide who do not through the mystical Blessing receive Jesus. For He is Life by Nature, inasmuch as He was begotten of a Living Father: no less quickening is His Holy Body also, being in a manner gathered and ineffably united with the all-quickening Word. Wherefore It is accounted His, and is conceived of as One with Him. For, since the Incarnation, it is inseparable; except as regards the knowledge that the Word Which came from God the Father, and the temple from the Virgin, are not indeed the same in nature (for the Body is not consubstantial with the Word from God), yet are they One by that coming-together and ineffable concurrence.” (Commentary on Gospel of John, Book 4, on the verse 6:53)

“First off, you're really not supposed to criticize moderators or their actions in public.”

What’s this? Are we in the military?

No, but you might try reading our forum rules before you continue questioning Salpy's moderatorial decisions in public. Continued disregard for this policy is considered grounds for disciplinary action.

Respect the mod/admin staff -- The moderators and administrative staff of oc.net keep this place running tidy. While you don't have to agree with a particular decision they make, we ask that you at least respect it publicly. If you feel the need to appeal or disagree with a decision that was made, please do so privately via PM. If you just have general complaints and want to go right to the top, please contact one of the Admins: Fr. Chris, Fr. Anastasios, or Robert.

I would like to invite everybody to hopefully a very interesting debate on the very core doctrines of our two congregations. I hope that we would try to examine with the most accuracy possible to us the teachings we hold and by this maybe we would be really able to realize the differences (if any) and ultimately the Truth (as far as possible to us).

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Nay, as a Slav, I have to say that nothing beats Greek food. Galaktoboureko = food of the Angels.

My godparents who are converts into the Greek church claim that Armenian food is even better than Greek.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I would like to invite everybody to hopefully a very interesting debate on the very core doctrines of our two congregations. I hope that we would try to examine with the most accuracy possible to us the teachings we hold and by this maybe we would be really able to realize the differences (if any) and ultimately the Truth (as far as possible to us).

I humbly ask the participants to abstain from any heated discussion involving personal attacks or the discussion of historical issues.

Let’s try to concentrate on the real force of our teachings and examine everything for consistency with the true Light revealed in our hearts (as far as possible for humans).

Humbly yoursCyril

I'm glad you've started a discussion in the private fora. We don't discourage discussion in the public fora, but it must be remembered that (a) The Oriental Orthodox Discussion section is "A non-polemical discussion of specifically Oriental Orthodox topics," (The quoted description comes from the main page of the forum, which gives the purpose of this particular section) and (b) our insistence on not having polemical EO-OO debates in the Public Fora is NOT a statement that there are no differences between the two communion, nor is it an attempt to sweep such discussions of differences "under the rug," but it is rather a desire to have a section where people can discuss OO topics without entering into the perpetual EO-OO debate. Non-polemical (or minimally polemical) discussions of EO-OO differences can take place within the Free-For-All: Religious Topics section, and very polemical discussion in the EO-OO Private Forum.

Thank you!

ClevelandGlobal Moderator

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

The Armenians also make their 'dolma' or 'tolma' with cabbage leaves. So both cabbage and vine leaves are used by us.

Quote

WE HAVE PIROHY AND BORSCHT AND KVASS!

These are foods and drink without which one can't imagine today's Armenia. Add to this also other Russian foods common in all Armenian families of Armenia - smetana, blinchiki, pelmeni, bubliki, tvorojniki...